Dan Aykroyd busts out Ghostbusters info
by Jared Rea 
{ Feb 3rd 2007 at 9:35AM }
The Ghostbusters drama just keeps on coming as Dan Aykroyd himself (who starred in and wrote the original film) has revealed just what is going on with our favorite revived franchise. From Dr. Raymond Stantz himself: "Universal purchased the rights from Sony for a game. I'm actually going to have to perform and do some motion capture for them. That will be next year." So now we know exactly why Sony had to drop the hammer on ZootFly and their Ghostbusters prototype. But why the sudden amount of interest in such an obscure property? It should be obvious by now that this is no mere coincidence. The moment the theme song itself resurfaced in a soon to be released Beatmania title, we knew something had to be up.
And that something is a new feature film. In yet another interview, Aykroyd reveals that not only is Ghostbusters III in production, but it's a computer animated film in which he lends his voice.
All that's left for this resurrection is some new toys and Ecto Cooler, because in 2007 Ghostbusters is all up in our grills, and we're loving it.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Daxter1985 @ Feb 3rd 2007 9:43AM
I hope by computer animated they mean something that looks like Advent children
Daxter1985 @ Feb 3rd 2007 9:45AM
or kinda like it at least >_>
nick @ Feb 3rd 2007 9:50AM
Yep, Ecto Cooler has been around forever, and has had at least two other names since Hi-C dropped the Ghostbusters reference. It's basically an orange drink.
There's a wiki article on it I believe.
chenry @ Feb 3rd 2007 10:24AM
Oh my lord! HAPPY DAYS!
Icupnimpn2 @ Feb 3rd 2007 10:02AM
Computer animated Ghostbusters III? That couldn't be worse news. I don't care if the actors are old and grey, there are subtleties that digital characters can't pull off. Now, I enjoyed the Real Ghostbusters cartoon back in the day, when I was a kid. And I even liked the Extreme Ghosbusters cartoon, which was surprisingly well done. But having a sequel to the main movie franchise be CG sounds to me like an awful Shrekification that the series will never recover from. But what do I know? I'm sure it will be a hit.
gozer @ Feb 3rd 2007 10:08AM
they better not fuck this shit up.
SickNic @ Feb 3rd 2007 10:08AM
Computer animated Ghostbusters? Yuck. give me live action please.
Chris @ Feb 3rd 2007 11:07AM
GHOST RIDE DAAA WHIIIP!
Himrin @ Feb 3rd 2007 11:20AM
Unfortunately, Bill Murray has stated that he won't do a trilogy, so we can count his voice out for Dr. Peter Venkman.
Rob @ Feb 3rd 2007 11:29AM
Who you gonna CALL *****!? Who da **** you Gonna CALL!??!?!
:)
Audie @ Feb 3rd 2007 11:31AM
Now that could be a great game for the wiimote. could you imagine aiming at the ghost and throwing out a trap with the nunchuck while pressing the trigger on the back of the wiimote to fire the stream and then open the trap with z button on the nunchuck. Too sweet.
James K. @ Feb 3rd 2007 11:46AM
I don't know how a CGI Ghostbusters movie could suck worse than Ghostbusters 2. So I'm excited. :)
Final Prototype @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:25PM
@ #3:
I was about to say that. I still buy Ecto Cooler and I'm 25. It's now called Crazy Citrus Cooler. Tastes exactly the same but isn't green anymore. :(
Ryan @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:32PM
In response to number 9 Himrin, if you listen to the interview, Bill Murray has signed on to voice Peter Venkman. He refused to do live action but apparently CGI is ok.
Daniel @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:46PM
Let's not forget that Resivoir Dogs wasn't exactly a "New Release" when they made that game. Scarface the movie had been out for quite a while before Scarface the game cameout. And what about "The Warriors"?
It's not about making a game on a newly released movie. It's about making a good game based around a good movie. They won't have to rush development to release the game around the movie, so this game has potential to be something special. Keep an eye on it.
White Rabbit @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:20PM
@14
Yeah cause the Warriors and Scarface were such AMAZING GAMES :P
SSBR @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:04PM
I love ghostbusters (yes, even #2). But to release a cgi only film and call it gb3 doesn't fit well... Why couldn't they just do a live action gb3?
http://www.rolesor.com
Kannon @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:48PM
Without Bill Murray Ghostbusters isnt Ghostbusters.
Charles @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:46PM
I had no idea people disliked the second movie so much. I was a kid when it came out and thought it was great. Loved the cartoons, too. I was even younger when the first one came out; so young it actually scared me (that and Gremlins).
Hopefully movie 3 manages to retain that which makes Ghostbusters so great. With Dan Akroyd involved, I'm not too worried.
Pretty Obvious @ Feb 3rd 2007 3:12PM
There was nothing wrong with the second movie. People are idiots, thats the problem. As far as Bill Murray goes he has said hes on board for Ghostbusters 3, but ONLY if the movie is done in CG and that he will only lend his voice.
http://www.cisnfm.com/station/blog_mike_mcguire.cfm?bid=7500
James K. @ Feb 3rd 2007 4:52PM
Actually there was a lot wrong with the second movie, IMDO, and I'll explain why without resorting to insults.
Mind you, this is based on getting it off of netflix a couple of months back. I thought it was okay when it came out but I wasn't a fan of the cartoons and the movie was more like the cartoon than the movie.
IMODO, again, it shared a lot of the flaws that Caddyshack 2 (and other movies of the time) did -- it was TOO over the top with the material. The first one worked because it was based on a handful of normal guys who found something seriously weird and stayed true to their roots. "They came, they say, they kicked it's ass."
In number two, the attitude was different and everything felt cheesey. The climatic ending with the *spoiler warning* statue of liberty coming to life and walking through the streets of NY to promote joy and happiness *end spoiler* was just too cheesey and over the top to actually work. They lost their edge and the movie suffers for it.
Plus *spoiler again* the baby should have been Peter's *end spoiler*, but that's the geek in me talking.
To number twenty, "opinions are like @holes, everyone has one." You can love the movie and be fine with it, that's fine, but there are a lot of us who don't like #2 and not ALL of us are idiots.
k9
is @ Feb 3rd 2007 7:00PM
James K,
You might not be an idiot, but you are a snob.
And thats not resorting to insults, thats just the truth of what it would take to say that having a feel-good ending would 'ruin' a movie. The second movie was great.
As for GBIII, if murrys in then it might have a chance. Is it not live action just because they are old and grey? I guess I canm see it, it could make the fact that its the ressurection of a quite old franchis more obvious. Theres no way that Ramis could squeeze into the GB jumpsuit any more.
Goldspire @ Feb 3rd 2007 7:36PM
#17, completely agree. Dan Akroyd is cool and all, but if they don't get Bill Murray to do some voice work, then it's not Ghostbusters.
Rubang B @ Feb 3rd 2007 8:01PM
They could do this movie without any of the original Ghostbusters and I'd still see it as long as they have Rick Moranis. He made both those films.
hemmy @ Feb 3rd 2007 8:04PM
Bill Murray has already agreed to do the voicework.
Personally I'd prefer live-action over the CG.
samfish @ Feb 3rd 2007 8:27PM
I'd still prefer live action, myself, but if the 3D is good enough, and they use things like motion capture, I'm sure they can pull it off well enough.
That said, I'm going to come right out and say that I'm probably one of the biggest Ghostbusters fans out there. I can even quote the first movie from start to finish (and this talent has never gotten me laid, believe it or not!)
...and I have agree that Ghostbusters II was pretty bad, especially compared to the first one. Like someone else said, it went completely over the top which isn't really what the first film was about. The characters kind of lost their humanity. On top of that, the humor was really dumbed down in the second one. If everything was a little more subdued, it probably could have been a lot better.
It's not an AWFUL movie. It's watchable. It isn't Batman & Robin. But it's miles below the first one.
Nor was it as epic feeling as the first one. Maybe epic isn't the right word, but the sense of accomplishment for saving the day at the end wasn't there.
Also, it only had two proton packs out of a possible four. Fuck slime blowers. I want proton packs.
...plus, it had a baby. Everyone knows what the rule is when you add a baby to the mix.
That's why I, and a lot of others, frankly, didn't like GBII
As for a new Ghostbusters game...bring it on!
I still think it would be a travesty not to have Ghostbusters on the Wii, though.
Donald @ Feb 3rd 2007 8:37PM
I CROSSED THE STREAMS OHSHI-
oasagan @ Feb 4th 2007 10:36AM
i completely agree with samfish. this game could be really fun on the wii. just the idea of wrangling some ghosts and tossing the trap across that messed up ballroom. i hope they just let me try to pull the tablecloth out from under the dinnerware! along the same lines, found a devilish new wii-mote based tee... http://www.orangealexander.com/wv1016.html
i just hope the gb game story treats you like a new member of the team, not as a primary character.
Kyouryuu @ Feb 3rd 2007 10:52PM
CGI Ghostbusters movie? Hmm. I'm skeptical. On one hand, I think there was a definite human appeal in the original movies that made them funny that would probably be lost on CGI. On the other hand, the 80s cartoon was great. I wonder if they will have a toony approach, or try to go realistic with it.
Sam G. @ Feb 4th 2007 1:28AM
Uhm, live action is great and all, but has anyone seen Harold Ramis lately? Dude's well over 300 pounds. There's a reason he doesn't act anymore.
I mean, Murray and Hudson are in good shape, but Akroyd is kinda chubby, Ramis is huge and Moranis is retired from acting. The ONLY way you were going to see a Ghostbusters 3 is if it was animated.
Rubang B @ Feb 4th 2007 4:33AM
Rick Moranis put out a country album called The Agoraphobic Cowboy. It's amazing. http://www.rickmoranis.com
sjenky @ Feb 4th 2007 6:18AM
Indeed, They probably look too old to do a live-action Ghostbusters movie, unless they work it into the story.. wich would probably suck. And let's face it, the real Slimer is probably dead by now :)
Lawrence @ Feb 5th 2007 1:03AM
To all who said GBII was too over the top and lacked humanity and yet are somehow on board for the CGI sequel: Which way do you think this is gonna go? It is gonna be an action packed CGI mess. I seriously doubt it is gonna play up humor and humanity when they have the CGI capabilities to produce 4,000 dumb ass demons descending on new york.
herman_munsters_stunt_double @ Feb 5th 2007 4:47AM
GB3 in CG? Wheee!
Erm, sorry 'bout that...quite happy about a third 'Busters flick, especially if it's in CG - like people have said, the guys are cracking on too much agewise to be able to do justice to a live-action job, and indeed, Ramis is the size of a small house.
And the prospect of a tie-in on Wii definitely gets a thumbs-up.